dmkozak wrote:Yes, Ben, you are absolutely correct in that GM does spray their trucks. Actually, most trucks are sprayed, so more paint can be applied to the bed than the rest of the vehicle. And, because GM's trucks are built in some of their oldest plants.
While that might be somewhat true, the video shown is to educate on the process and no where do they mention that they add extra paint. In fact you do not want to add "extra/more" paint by spraying as you will get runs. And I know for a fact it is not feasible in both time and money to send the truck back through. You cannot send a truck back into paint to add paint to the bed of the truck without masking off the cab of the truck... They would have to repaint the whole truck. I was surprised to learn how they do the two-tone, in which they do respray the whole truck, but I know for a fact that you are in error talking about extra paint in the truck beds. While in a common sense approach it would make sense of why they would, it just does not happen...
Quote »Yes certain newer small plants in Europe went to spraying for environmental reasons. But, the environmental benefits were found to not be as great as originally thought.[/quote]Spraying is TONS more environmentally friendly than "dipping tanks". Think about it for a second. You have to have 100,000 gallons of "paint/primer/phosphate solution" or whatever in the dipping tanks. You then have to dispose of this after you switch. Also think of anytime that it would get contaminated for some reason, you would then have to swap out that 100,000 gallons and clean the whole dipping tank and refill. This is again, both HIGHLY not environmentally friendly nor economically feasible.
Quote »P.S. Your electrostatic example futher supports the difficulty in spraying. Porsche began electrostatically charging the paint and the body back around 1970. They found spraying really did not work because it is very difficult to control electrostatically charged paint in the air. I imagine today's clean rooms make this easier. But, it is still difficult.[/quote]Do you not understand what electrostatically charging painting is doing? Sure maybe in the '70s they had problems, but this is the most widely used way to paint mass produced cars in the world. Every manufacturer does this. They do it because of the OPPOSITE of what you claim. It is TONS easier and cleaner to paint electrostatically. The whole point of the process is that the opposite charges of the paint and body cause the paint to STICK to the body/panel and be DRAWN TO the body/panel being painted. What does this mean? This means that less paint is wasted. Which is more environmentally friendly (going back to the above argument from you). You do not have to "control" the paint in the air as the physics behind this process tells you (and the reason they do it) that the paint particles will be attracted to the body panels.
Quote »When manufacturers went to water based paint for environmental reason about 15-20 years, the thought was water based paints would be easier on spraying equipment and easier to clean and change colors. So, many manufacturers built spray facilities, which are still in use today. But, spraying has proven to not be the best way to electrostatically apply water based paint.[/quote]I have no argument there as this exceeds my knowledge, but I will say that you are correct in your saying "many manufacturers built spray facilities, which are still in use today".... Hmmm... Let us go back to your VERY first post... You said, "I have found complaints of factory orange peel to be quite confusing for the past 15 - 20 years, because all manufacturers switched to dipping cars (not spraying them) and using water based paints." Hmmmm... Really interesting... In your first post you mention that ALL manufacturers now dip cars. But yet you just told us that many manufacturers still spray and have spray facilities. But the whole water based vs other paints I do not really have any knowledge on. Unlike you though I am willing to admit it.
Quote »Your batch painting description in the Nissan quote follows what VW began in their South American plants about 12 years ago. They would make one color at a time. Sometimes this would be a 2 day run. Sometimes, a whole week. If you wanted a less popular color, you would have to wait longer until the production schedule backed up enough orders of that color to make it worthwhile to change to that color. And, since they only offered a handful of colors, this was not a problem. The silver and black paint shops never changed colors because these were so popular.[/quote]Cannot argue with that... completely factual, but it only supports my argument... Not yours... Is that a "tail between the legs response"???
In closing, you were harsh in your comments to the OP, but now your response to me is somewhat more docile. You are still wrong in the "painting by dipping"... I provided factual links to three manufacturers, GM, BMW (the car in question) and Infiniti (the car you own and I guess somewhat in question by the OP as well). You have yet to provide a SINGLE link to ANY manufacturer talking about how the base/color coat of the paint is dipped and not sprayed.
While I agree that the cleaning/etching and primer layers might be dipped, there is no way that any manufacturer can mass produce cars of various colors by dipping each individual color. Just admit you are wrong... It is alright, I have learned from my mistakes and admit to them in the past.
Where were your 35 years in the auto design and development industry??? Are you retired now??? Because if not, and your knowledge about the paint process that you claim to know so well is so far off... I want to avoid buying anything from the company that you work for.